Scirocco Central

Tops marks to Citygate Watford for quick service turnaround, however very nicely specd Golf loan car was less impressive on fuel!
Granted it was tight with 78miles on clock, found it gutless and averaged only 32.8mpg on a fast run to Birmingham. Similar run and speeds over 200mile run in 2.0TSi Roc returns 34mpg anyone with a 1.4 Roc found economy an issue or was it simply because it was tight??

Less impressive was no spares available to replace indicator, fog lights etc after promissing to have in stock so still smashed and not working....

Malcolm wrote:........was less impressive on fuel!
Granted it was tight with 78miles on clock, found it gutless and averaged only 32.8mpg on a fast run to Birmingham. Similar run and speeds over 200mile run in 2.0TSi Roc returns 34mpg anyone with a 1.4 Roc found economy an issue or was it simply because it was tight??

About right, it needs to set itself up on the lambda. First tank I got was 32mpg. It won't working properly until 500 miles and then its OK but its a different engine characteristic due to the SuperCharger. It drinks if you keep revving it below 3,000 ish rpm (foot paddling). Instant MPG in the dash can drop to single figures depending how you use you right foot and engage the SuperCharger.

C.

Had kids in car so was brisk but not thrashing. Set cruise at ton for best part 160miles. I know its not 265brake but was gutless and I do drive lower powered vans etc. Even a Nissan Note I had end of week was more spritley and economical. Hey ho, never found VW/Audis ultimately frugal buit nicely mid range.

Well I can guarantee that a Nissan Notes is certainly no where near as sprightly as my 1.4 160bhp Roc. Unless they do a supped up GTi model that I haven't heard of yet.

Just a thought but was it a 122bhp 1.4 Golf ?

very good point zephyr, looking http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/golf- ... s/overview" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; it wouldn't have been the 160 as I really can't see them giving GT's out as loans especially new ones so very likely was 80 or 122. RW1's comments about the engine not loosening up till 500 miles ish still stand though

S

trix wrote:RW1's comments about the engine not loosening up till 500 miles ish still stand though

S

Yes, I would concur with my learned colleagues on this point

I can't say that was anywhere near a 160 point was if it was a 122 economy should still have been better, hey ho won't change the world just suprised and shows how good the 2.0TSI is if driven sensibly, certainly porr if thrashed tho! (Which happens in any turbo car!)